Left wing? Liberal? Progressive? Radical? Socialist?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Which of the above, or other terms indicating similar political tendencies, would you say technically apply to you, and which ones do you use.

Personally I would say that I am a liberal (I tend to oppose the state taking away people's social options) and a leftwinger (I tend to support economic activity by the state to redistribute wealth or help the poor).

I probably *am* a progressive, but it's not a term I use - I suspect it's more American parlance than English; I've virtually never come across it outside of DU and it's not a term I'm comfortable with.

The only answer to "am I a socialist", for me or anyone else, is "by some definitions", I think.

Tony Blair has claimed he is a socialist;

Ken Livingstone has claimed he isn't;

The Russian and Chinese communists use the word to mean specifically "communist", as an alternative to capitalist;

Many Western liberals use it to imply an alternative to communism - capitalism, with taxation used to pay for public services;

Many American conservatives use it to mean anything even slightly left wing;

As such virtually everyone but the farthest far right is a socialist by some definition, and virtually no-one is by all. The word has, sadly, become meaningless.

[antiimperialist]

1. All of the above

some shy away from the word radical because it sounds like a crazy molotov-bomb throwing anarchist protester.
This is not so. Radical means advocating deep changes in the society.

[LWolf]

2. All, none, and other:

I really dislike the way people seem to NEED labels; to create them as if they aren't secure in their identity until they identify with a labeled group. I understand that we are pack animals, of course.

Still, all labels can be, and are, corrupted over time. Languages, like people, are constantly evolving, and "spinning" a label into various new shapes and forms leaves those labels ambiguous at best, and practically meaningless.

I don't like being categorized, sorted, or labeled by people who need to fit me into some nice little slot for their own peace of mind. It feels claustrophobic to me, as if there are artificial walls keeping me from expressing all of my true self.

I'm a many layered person. I hold some views that are socialist, some conservative. Some authoritarian, some libertarian, some pacifistic. Some anarchist, some Green, some traditional, some pagan, some independent. I tend to lean against the current direction. The harder the majority lean one way, the harder I'm likely to lean the other, to provide some ballast. The harder someone pushes me in one direction, the harder I will push back against them. I don't follow, I'm not linear, I'm not 2-dimensional, and I don't see the world in 2 polarized dimensions, either.

I don't want to be labeled, but when circumstances call for it, or someone really needs the security of a label for me, I'll choose "independent." "Lone Wolf."

And yes, I'm a registered Democrat.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I disagree.

Labels = Language = Thought.

You may choose to use more, smaller labels to give a more detailed picture of your views. But if you can't "label", which is to say describe, an idea, then it's meaningless.

The point of labelling is not to "keep people in nice little slots", it's to communicate which slots they are or aren't in. You're in some "slots" and not others whether or not you're "labelled" as such; telling people which does not limit you in any way.

[cobalt1999]

6. I have to disagree with you

There are thousands of issues out there. No way any person who thinks for themselves is going to "line up" with a single group on all those issues. For myself, I can be extremely liberal on some issues, conservative on some issues, socialist on others.

Anyone that looks to a group (or a message board) on what to think, isn't thinking. Anyone claiming a label fits them 100% isn't thinking for themselves either.

I would change your equation to: Labels = Not having to think for myself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Obviously, innaccurately labelling people or things is bad. But that's missing the point.

"liberal on some issues, conservative on others" is in itself a label.

[cobalt1999]

13. Actually, the point is no label works

If you decide each of the hundreds of issues on their own, no label(s) will work for you.

Labels only incline people to identify with a group and then let the group think for them. IMHO, Accepting a Label = Not thinking for yourself.

[LWolf]

25. I can't agree, in turn.

What real point does a label have, when it means different things to different people?

"Progressive," for example, can mean so many things that it allows people to misrepresent themselves.

Progressive as in the "friendlier" term for liberal?

Or progressive as in the DLC, who claims that label as well?

They sure as hell aren't the same thing.

[HereSince1628]

3. Progressives believe in the notion that our country and our world can be better

Moving toward that better situation is Progress. What do we want better? We want more people to experience more freedom, more justice, more equality, more dignity. In short, we want more people to be comforted by the glow of the Enlightenment.

And yes, I know that the US is chock-a-block full of ill-educated, xenophobic, overweight, faux Religious, beer drinking, sod-kicking, book-hating, loudmouths who wouldn't have the sophistication to recognize the Enlightenment if it rear-ended their favorite NASCAR racer. It really doesn't matter to me if anyone in this country or in another country doesn't get what it is to be Progressive.

My struggle is here in the US, now. I'm not a Trotskyite, I don't intend to export my view of Progress out to the rest of the world. I just want to gain back half of the Progress the Cheney administration has crushed before I die. Hopefully, after me there will be more dissatisfied progressives to take up the struggle when I'm gone.

[sampsonblk]

9. You want progress in the liberal direction

Any fundie can claim they are progressive. 'Progressive' doesn't distinguish you from anyone.

[HereSince1628]

20. No I'll keep progress as I named it thank-you.

I do have an opinion of what I think is progress and it ISN'T what passes as an American Liberal.

The two characteristics of liberalism that always bubble up are open mindedness and tolerance. I think that the later is actually much overdone in the United States and and has led in the past 7 years to an acceptance of the surrender of hundreds of years of social progress. Tolerance of cultural and intellectual diversity that yields up freedom, equality, and justice is fine, but tolerance that becomes social relativism isn't fine. Oppression, elitism/classism, and exceptionalism cannot be given equal status as social mechanisms in the struggle of progress. They can't even be given a stage from which their proponent can hawk that snake oil.

That sort of dysfunctional liberalist toleranace lunacy is what leads the GOP to think that the left is made up of a bunch of surrender monkeys who have no beliefs. It is what drives elected democrats to never make a stand even when the nation's most essential and most cherished rights are being crushed under the hob-nailed boots of the extraconstitutional Unitary Dictatorship of the Commander Guy's Vice.

As a Progressive I recognize that confrontation and endless struggle are essential constants not only for progress but for maintenance of the status quo. The minute we become tolerate of timidity we endanger society to the will and mendacity of the greedy power seekers (think Dick Cheney) who would put us under the thumb of tyranny for their profit and enjoyment. And as we've seen, we can lose in a twinkling of an eye rights such as Habeus Corpus that are the corner stones of our justice system.

When liberals curb their enthusiasm for tolerance I'll reconsider, but until then I find 'liberal' a less than complimentary epithet.

[HereSince1628]

21. Sorry for the dupe, new computer, same old slow isp...

[HereSince1628]

22. I want progress, I'd pick and choose among liberal ideals very selectively

I think tolerance is highly over-rated. And I think that the penetrance of the perversities of extremist social/economic relativism into contemporary liberal philosophy has essentially disarmed liberals and made them incapable of defending centuries of hard won social progress.

[Odin2005]

5. I'm a Liberal Socialist.

I'm a Socialist in that I dislike the capitalist economic system. I am a Liberal in that, unlike Marxists and Anarchists, I think socialism is perfectly compatible with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democracy">Liberal Democracy

[mrgorth]

7. Populist

Maybe democratic socialist. Fairly far left economically and all over the place socially.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. socialist has become a meaningless term ranging from Tony Blair to Maoist guerrillas

so I just don't see a whole lot of purpose in using the term especially since it has no meaning anymore and in the United States the term has largely been demonized anyway.

For me personally I see little point in using a term that currently has no real meaning and has been successfully marginalized in the United States.

I suppose the term liberal-social-democrat comes close to describing the vague ideology of most American progressives. I suppose it comes close to describing the personal beliefs of a sizable portion of rank-and-file Democrats. But if people have no idea what you are talking about - even many people who might be reasonably described as liberal-social-democrats, I do not know if there is a whole lot of purpose in using that term either.

[ludwigb]

10. Labels=Religious Thought Habits

Why do we feel the need to define ourselves as subscribing to a specific belief system? I'd rather define myself as an individual...

I am Liberal/Radical/Social Democrat/Green/Conservative/American/Cosmopolitan. I am my own person.

[riqster]

12. None of the above

Check out the Political Compass for a more nuanced (and more accurate) evaulation than plain Left-Right.

Try it out

[midlife_mo_Jo]

23. Took the test

I'm a left leaning libertarian. I'm in the same area as Ghandi. :)

[IndianaJones]

14. conservative Democrat. nt.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. All but "radical." n/t

[ozone_man]

16. All of the above in the right context.

Left wing, Liberal, and Progressive are probably most accurate for me. Radical and Socialist on occasion.

Certainly I support socialized education, welfare, health (single payer). I'm radical in some instances. Abolish the Federal Reserve Board! :) I would say I'm gradually becoming a deep ecologist, and a social ecologist. Some radical measures have to be taken to save the planet. Now is not the time to be moderates. We need to be activists. Large changes in our lifestyles are required, and less population.

[LeftishBrit]

17. 'Left-wing' usually...

I wouldn't call either Blair or Maoist guerillas socialist - I'd call the former 'centre-right', when I'm not calling him something worse; and the latter 'communist'.

I'm a socialist in Europaean terms.

British people don't often use the term 'progressive' politically (though we may speak of 'progressive education') and 'liberal' here usually implies very *moderately* left-wing.

[slackmaster]

18. Slightly left of center moderate libertarian

Just a bit to the right of the Dalai Lama.

[democrat2thecore]

19. Socialist in the tradition of Eugene Debs -nt

[nealmhughes]

28. Yep, Debs Tendency here, too.

[DuaneBidoux]

24. Progressive Dem.

For making and distributing goods and services fairly adequately I feel capitalism is a good system and thus the main foundations should be left alone if people are not being hurt. But with any system comes costs and I believe that mechanisms in society must be created to deal with those costs.

Like everything in life there are those who are great at playing the game. They will achieve more and more power and wealth and there must be a way to get some of that down into the less able groups otherwise it is eventually "game over" with both economic vitality and democracy.

It must also be recognized that any great civilization has always needed public goods and services to function. We are no different.

There is also a perception that if "I don't pay for it it doesn't cost anything." If kids aren't pulled out of poverty of all society eventually pays the cost in incarceration etc. If companies are allowed to pollute how they wish there is eventually a cost in illness that society and individuals at large bare. If banks (yes even banks) are allowed to go bust then there is eventually an economic calamity that crushes society. This thinking goes on and on but the lesson is always the same: nobody is an island.

This is not to mention that there are values other than money that I believe must be supported in society: health care, art, leisure time, family time, etc. For this, capitalism is worthless and indeed counterproductive. This is where government must step in.

People here seem not to grasp this about Europe: they have consciously made a choice to have one television in the house and long vacations and health care As a society we have not consciously asked these questions. Instead the right has made Americans not question the consumer mentality that is leading to reduced quality of life generally.

[Progressive Friend]

26. socialist (i.e. nationalization of the means of production and distribution)

That being said, many members of self-proclaimed "socialist" parties are not actually socialist (they do not want to nationalize anything). Tony Blair is a good example, he is really just a neo-liberal (i.e. like the Clintons).

[ulysses]

27. our political language is barren.

When the DLC runs the "Progressive Policy Institute", one might as well call oneself an avocado.

[stimbox]

29. All of the above.

I resemble any of those labels.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. I'll answer to any of them. names and labels are not important to me.